(20-12-2014 03:37 PM)BnW Wrote: Dresden could be an interesting discussion all on its own. While the troops, planes and factories were all legitimate targets, they bombed far more than that. Bombings of that time were far from accurate, but there is a case to be made that the allies were interested in doing more at Dresden than just hitting military targets.

Also, the comment about supporting Nazism because you question the bombing of Dresden is almost hilarious. I say almost because that same perverse illogic is being utilized to try to clamp down on any discussion on the report. Questioning what happened is equated by some as siding with the terrorists, a completely ridiculous assertion.

I'm not saying that those criticizing the CIA are siding with the terrorists, I'm saying that denying the righteous of the bombing of Dresden is something a nazi-sympathizer would do. I'm also pointing out that Saddam would probably have killed a lot more people intentionally then the Americans did with collateral damage.

Yes you are saying that, and it is wrong in every conceivable way, it's one of the reasons nobody around here takes anything you have to say seriously.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote: America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense

Agreed. You can have qualms about the morality of Dresden and not be a Nazi sympathizer. For example, I'm Jewish and most of my father's family was murdered by Hitler and his thugs. I'm pretty sure no one is confusing me with a Nazi sympathizer. And, I think the bombing of Dresden may have been morally questionable.

So, so much for that moronic argument.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(20-12-2014 07:06 PM)Res Publica Wrote: I'm not saying that those criticizing the CIA are siding with the terrorists, I'm saying that denying the righteous of the bombing of Dresden is something a nazi-sympathizer would do. I'm also pointing out that Saddam would probably have killed a lot more people intentionally then the Americans did with collateral damage.

I'm going to assume you meant righteousness.

right·eous·nessnoun
-The quality of being morally right or justifiable.

For the record, questioning the carpet-bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians (even when performed by 'your side' for 'your benefit') is something that those with empathy would do.

I don't know how many Neo-Nazis or Nazi-sympathizers you've ever met or seen, but they've always struck me more as the kind of people who lament the cessation of the Concentration Camps and state sanctioned genocide, not those worried about civilian causalities and collateral damage. I don't know, maybe the Neo-Nazis are just more socially conscious in your part of Canada?

As to your other non sequitur, would Saddam have killed more? Well, now we will never know. As bad as things may have been, would it have warranted unilateral intervention from the United States? No, and that's why they lied; not just to their citizens, but to the international community at large. They caused a decades long international boondoggle (remember that the next time you claim that Jeb Bush can't be any worse than Obama) that has wasted trillions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives. For what? Iraq is still a shit-hole, but now we've lost any moral high-ground and we've turned the region into a terrorist recruitment bonanza. Near as I can tell the only people who benefited from the Iraq War were the defense contractors, the politicians they bought off, and ISIS.

Hooray for starting wars under false pretenses! And fuck you if you don't tow the party line and instead question it's righteousness, or some petulant little know-nothing teenager form Canada will get pissy with you!

D'you guys think anyone will be put on trial over the torture report? I think that might be the only way you guys can recover anything from this - if it's seen that the US *does* something about it when illegal activities by their own come to light...

My money is on nothing happening...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

Btw, starting wars under false pretenses is something else we hung people for in the 40s.

... Integrity sacrificed on the altar of expedience nowadays. No one really gives a shit, old injustices never die. Hoi polloi have enough of a struggle getting their own daily bread, no need to worry about some purported crime half a world away. WW2 I think was more immediate as well, because a lot of soldiers were conscripts - everyone's family had someone who'd been to the war, many had lost relatives... It was immediate so people cared. In this world where faceless professional soldier heros kill each other in conflicts far removed from most people's every day lives it's easy to ignore them. No reason to give a shit if my life isn't affected...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette

(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote: And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.

I don't know where you got the notion that in WWII a lot of soldiers were conscripts. There was conscription and some people certainly were drafted but, at least in the US, an overwhelming number of men volunteered and signed up right after Pearl Harbor. Most of the Marines in the Pacific signed up, all on their own, to be Marines. All the men in the airborne were volunteers. I believer submarine duty was all volunteer too.

It was a very different time and that was a very different war. One of the very few times in history where there was a war with a clear right and wrong.The Nazis and the Japanese were evil. The things they did were horrific and genocidal. Both entities had to be stopped and people volunteered by the thousdands to stop them.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost

(21-12-2014 05:31 PM)BnW Wrote: I don't know where you got the notion that in WWII a lot of soldiers were conscripts. There was conscription and some people certainly were drafted but, at least in the US, an overwhelming number of men volunteered and signed up right after Pearl Harbor. Most of the Marines in the Pacific signed up, all on their own, to be Marines. All the men in the airborne were volunteers. I believer submarine duty was all volunteer too.

It was a very different time and that was a very different war. One of the very few times in history where there was a war with a clear right and wrong.The Nazis and the Japanese were evil. The things they did were horrific and genocidal. Both entities had to be stopped and people volunteered by the thousdands to stop them.

It seems like the opinions of one group have been left out of the discussion, that is the group whose opinions matter most; the Iraqis. Why don't we like them decide if the Iraq War was justified, they would be the ones best qualified to determine that. You might not like what they have to say.

And as for leading to ISIL, Saddamists are some of ISIL's biggest allies. The other thing that the article fails to mention is that while Ba'ath was at first a secular fascist movement, it under Saddam it became as much Islamist as nationalist.

And the Kurdish patriots fighting back would not have the means to do so were it not for the Americans freeing them from the tyranny of Saddam. Now the Kurds are armed and well organized into the Peshmerga, allowing them to oppose ISIL far more effectively. With all your talk of equality and opposing oppression and such I am surprised that you are so indifferent towards the Kurds, who are an oppressed people (both historically and currently in Iran, Turkey and Syria) and largely leftist.